long established principle (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

long established principle in Maryland

19 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (15)

CaseFollowedCited
Board of License Commissioners v. Haberlingreen
md · 1990 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–2014
2 sentences

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

22
B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.green
md · 1990 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1995–2007
2 sentences

2007“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8-131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.” B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 319 Md. 127, 132-33 , 571 A.2d 1213, 1216 (1990); accord Stevens, 337 Md. at 476-77 , 654 A.2d at 879 (1995) (“Maryland Rule 8-131(d) provides that, on appeal from an order constituting a final judgment, other orders, even if interlocutory, are generally reviewable by the appellate court.”).

2007“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8-131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.” B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 319 Md. 127, 132-33 , 571 A.2d 1213, 1216 (1990); accord Stevens, 337 Md. at 476-77 , 654 A.2d at 879 (1995) (“Maryland Rule 8-131(d) provides that, on appeal from an order constituting a final judgment, other orders, even if interlocutory, are generally reviewable by the appellate court.”).

22
Woodell v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 1967 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
2 sentences

1969See Woodell v. State, 2 Md.

1969See Woodell v. State, 2 Md.

22
Lewis v. Stategreen
md · 1979 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010
2 sentences

2010The majority opinion highlighted, as an example, a then recent decision applying the long established principle that the jury serves only as a judge of the “law of the crime.” See Lewis v. State, 285 Md. [atj 724, 404 A.2d 1073 .... 14 .

2008The majority opinion highlighted, as an example, a then recent decision applying the long established principle that the jury serves only as a judge of the "law of the crime." See Lewis v. State, 285 Md. 705, 724 , 404 A.2d 1073, 1083 (1979) (holding that instructions on the voluntariness of confessions are binding, not merely advisory, on the jury, and the jury should be instructed as such).

12
Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc.green
md · 2008 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

11
Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc.green
mdctspecapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

11
Hudson v. Housing Authoritygreen
md · 2007 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at-, 130 S.Ct. at 606-07 , 175 L.Ed.2d at 468 ; see e.g., Hudson, 402 Md. at 27 , 935 A.2d at 400 (“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8—131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.”).

2011Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at-, 130 S.Ct. at 606-07 , 175 L.Ed.2d at 468 ; see e.g., Hudson, 402 Md. at 27 , 935 A.2d at 400 (“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8—131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.”).

11
Montgomery County v. Stevensgreen
md · 1995 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8-131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.” B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 319 Md. 127, 132-33 , 571 A.2d 1213, 1216 (1990); accord Stevens, 337 Md. at 476-77 , 654 A.2d at 879 (1995) (“Maryland Rule 8-131(d) provides that, on appeal from an order constituting a final judgment, other orders, even if interlocutory, are generally reviewable by the appellate court.”).

2007“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8-131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.” B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 319 Md. 127, 132-33 , 571 A.2d 1213, 1216 (1990); accord Stevens, 337 Md. at 476-77 , 654 A.2d at 879 (1995) (“Maryland Rule 8-131(d) provides that, on appeal from an order constituting a final judgment, other orders, even if interlocutory, are generally reviewable by the appellate court.”).

11
Garay v. Overholtzergreen
md · 1993 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002Judge Karwacki for the Court in Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 346 , 631 A.2d 429, 432 (1993), set forth the principle and some of the earlier authorities as follows: “It is well settled that when a person negligently injures a minor two separate causes of action arise; the minor child has a cause of action for injuries suffered by it, and the parent or parents of the minor child have a cause of action for loss of services and for medical expenses incurred by the parent for the treatment of the minor’s injuries.

2002Judge Karwacki for the Court in Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 346 , 631 A.2d 429, 432 (1993), set forth the principle and some of the earlier authorities as follows: “It is well settled that when a person negligently injures a minor two separate causes of action arise; the minor child has a cause of action for injuries suffered by it, and the parent or parents of the minor child have a cause of action for loss of services and for medical expenses incurred by the parent for the treatment of the minor’s injuries.

11
State's Atty v. City of Balto.green
md · 1975 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

11
Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authoritygreen
md · 1991 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

11
Vogel v. Grantgreen
md · 1984 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

11
Wylie v. Johnstongreen
md · 1868 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
1 sentence

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

11
Burning Tree Club, Inc. v. Bainumgreen
md · 1985 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989Burning Tree I, 305 Md. at 82 [ 501 A.2d 817 ], quoting from State v. Schuller, 280 Md. 305, 319 , 372 A.2d 1076 (1977).

1989Burning Tree I, 305 Md. at 82 [ 501 A.2d 817 ], quoting from State v. Schuller, 280 Md. 305, 319 , 372 A.2d 1076 (1977).

11
Latz v. Latz A/K/A Schafergreen
mdctspecapp · 1971 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Schuller green
md · 1977
2 sentences

1985A long established principle of statutory construction in determining severability questions, is that where the Legislature enacts a prohibition with an excepted class, and a court finds that the classification is constitutionally infirm, the court will ordinarily not presume that the Legislature would have enacted the prohibition without the exception, thereby extending the prohibition to a class of persons whom the Legislature clearly intended should not be reached. [ Id. at 319 , 372 A.2d at 1083 .] See Turner v. State, supra ; Wheeler v. State, 281 Md. 593 , 380 A.2d 1052 (1977).

1985A long established principle of statutory construction in determining severability questions, is that where the Legislature enacts a prohibition with an. excepted class, and a court finds that the classification is constitutionally infirm, the court will ordinarily not presume that the Legislature would have enacted the prohibition without the exception, thereby extending the prohibition to a class of persons whom the Legislature clearly intended should not be reached. [Id. at 319, 372 A.2d at 1083 .] See Turner v. State, supra; Wheeler v. State, 281 Md. 593 , 380 A.2d 1052 (1977).

31978–1989
Cook v. State green
md · 1961
2 sentences

1969It has been a long established rule in Maryland that the accused’s character cannot be attacked by the State by showing prior convictions until the accused has testified. 1 Cook v. State, 225 Md. 603 , 171 A. 2d 460 .

1969It has been a long established rule in Maryland that the accused’s character cannot be attacked by the State by showing prior convictions until the accused has testified. 1 Cook v. State, 225 Md. 603 , 171 A. 2d 460 .

21969–1969
Dorsey v. Bethel A.M.E. Church green
md · 2003
2 sentences

2014Church, 375 Md. 59, 67 , 825 A.2d 388 , 392 n. 1 (2003).

2014Church, 375 Md. 59, 67 , 825 A.2d 388 , 392 n. 1 (2003).

12014–2014
Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Smallwood green
md · 1992
2 sentences

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

2014The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. *550 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.”’ Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections v. Small-wood

12014–2014
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter green
scotus · 2009
2 sentences

2011Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at-, 130 S.Ct. at 606-07 , 175 L.Ed.2d at 468 ; see e.g., Hudson, 402 Md. at 27 , 935 A.2d at 400 (“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8—131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.”).

2011Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S. at-, 130 S.Ct. at 606-07 , 175 L.Ed.2d at 468 ; see e.g., Hudson, 402 Md. at 27 , 935 A.2d at 400 (“It is a long established principle of appellate procedure, now embodied in Rule 8—131(d), that an appeal from a final judgment ordinarily brings up for appellate review all [other] orders in the case.”).

12011–2011
State v. Adams green
md · 2008
1 sentence

2008The majority today, however, says (Opinion at 257-58, 958 A.2d at 306 , emphasis added): "The [ Stevenson ] majority opinion highlighted, as an example, a then recent decision applying the long established principle that the jury serves only as a judge of the `law of the crime.' See Lewis v. State, 285 Md. 705, 724 , 404 A.2d 1073, 1083 (1979) (holding that instructions on the voluntariness of confessions are binding, not merely advisory, on the jury, and the jury should be instructed as such)." The Lewis opinion never mentioned the phrase "law of the crime." The only "exception" recognized by

12008–2008
Howard v. Bishop Byrne Council Home, Inc. green
md · 1968
2 sentences

1994In Howard v. Bishop Byrne Home, 249 Md. 233 , 238 A.2d 863 , this Court was asked once again to overthrow the long established doctrine of immunity of charitable organizations from tort liability, for the reasons that it is an anachronism, a slave of stare decisis, a source of wrongs committed without a remedy, and against the “weight” of modern authority.

1994In Howard v. Bishop Byrne Home, 249 Md. 233 , 238 A.2d 863 , this Court was asked once again to overthrow the long established doctrine of immunity of charitable organizations from tort liability, for the reasons that it is an anachronism, a slave of stare decisis, a source of wrongs committed without a remedy, and against the “weight” of modern authority.

11994–1994
State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc. green
md · 1989
2 sentences

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

11992–1992
Montgomery County v. Board of Supervisors green
md · 1988
2 sentences

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

1992See also Sugarloaf v. Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641 , 650 n. 6, 594 A.2d 1115 , 1119 n. 6 (1991); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., supra, 315 Md. at 291 , 554 A.2d at 385 ; Montgomery County v. Board of Elections, 311 Md. 512 , 516 n. 3, 536 A.2d 641 , 643 n. 3 (1988); State’s Atty v. City of Balto., 274 Md. 597, 602 , 337 A.2d 92, 96 (1975), and cases there cited. .

11992–1992
Carbaugh v. State green
md · 1982
2 sentences

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

11990–1990
Montgomery County v. Ian Corp. green
md · 1978
2 sentences

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

11990–1990
Lewis v. Lewis green
md · 1981
2 sentences

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

1990See, e.g., Vogel v. Grant, 300 Md. 690, 701 , 481 A.2d 186 (1984); Carbaugh v. State, 294 Md. 323, 328 , 449 A.2d 1153 (1982); Lewis v. Lewis, 290 Md. 175, 184-185 , 428 A.2d 454 (1981); Montgomery Co. v. Ian Corp., 282 Md. 459, 467-468 , 385 A.2d 80 (1978); Wylie v. Johnston, et al., 29 Md. 298, 303 (1868) (explaining the reasons for the principle).

11990–1990
Wheeler v. State green
md · 1978
2 sentences

1985A long established principle of statutory construction in determining severability questions, is that where the Legislature enacts a prohibition with an. excepted class, and a court finds that the classification is constitutionally infirm, the court will ordinarily not presume that the Legislature would have enacted the prohibition without the exception, thereby extending the prohibition to a class of persons whom the Legislature clearly intended should not be reached. [Id. at 319, 372 A.2d at 1083 .] See Turner v. State, supra; Wheeler v. State, 281 Md. 593 , 380 A.2d 1052 (1977).

1985A long established principle of statutory construction in determining severability questions, is that where the Legislature enacts a prohibition with an. excepted class, and a court finds that the classification is constitutionally infirm, the court will ordinarily not presume that the Legislature would have enacted the prohibition without the exception, thereby extending the prohibition to a class of persons whom the Legislature clearly intended should not be reached. [Id. at 319, 372 A.2d at 1083 .] See Turner v. State, supra; Wheeler v. State, 281 Md. 593 , 380 A.2d 1052 (1977).

11985–1985
O. C. Taxpayers for Equal Rights, Inc. v. Mayor of Ocean City green
md · 1977
2 sentences

1985Taxpayers v. Ocean City, 280 Md. 585, 601 , 375 A.2d 541 (1977), and cases there cited.

1985Taxpayers v. Ocean City, 280 Md. 585, 601 , 375 A.2d 541 (1977), and cases there cited.

11985–1985
Columbian Carbon Co. v. Kight green
md · 1955
2 sentences

1981Carlton’s rejoinder is that the offer to sell was signed by two individuals, each of whom had an interest in the whole, and that while the death of Calvin operated as a revocation of his offer to sell and terminated his interest, his death neither (1) terminated the offer made by Cecelia, an offer over which she retained, as an individual and as from the outset, the unrestricted power to revoke; (2) increased her interest, see Columbian Carbon Co. v. Kight, 207 Md. 203 , 114 A.2d 28 , 51 A.L.R. 2d 1232 (1955); nor (3) destroyed her capacity to convey.

1981Carlton’s rejoinder is that the offer to sell was signed by two individuals, each of whom had an interest in the whole, and that while the death of Calvin operated as a revocation of his offer to sell and terminated his interest, his death neither (1) terminated the offer made by Cecelia, an offer over which she retained, as an individual and as from the outset, the unrestricted power to revoke; (2) increased her interest, see Columbian Carbon Co. v. Kight, 207 Md. 203 , 114 A.2d 28 , 51 A.L.R. 2d 1232 (1955); nor (3) destroyed her capacity to convey.

11981–1981
Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. green
scotus · 1902
2 sentences

1977In Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 565 , 22 S. Ct. 431, 441 , 46 L.

1977In Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 565 , 22 S. Ct. 431, 441 , 46 L.

11977–1977
Green v. State green
md · 1936
11967–1967

Where else courts name it

CA 92 (1932–2025) PA 62 (1894–2020) IL 57 (1896–2025) TX 47 (1908–2017) MO 32 (1898–2024) FL 32 (1903–2023) NJ 23 (1952–2024) MA 23 (1913–2014) AR 21 (1920–1994) OK 21 (1896–2013) KS 20 (1941–2026) NY 20 (1853–2016) MD 19 (1967–2014) AL 18 (1925–1988) ID 17 (1965–2023) IN 16 (1883–2006) VA 16 (1898–2022) CT 15 (1986–2018) TN 15 (1963–2013) MS 15 (1955–2020) NC 13 (1938–2018) WA 12 (1930–2020) KY 11 (1917–2025) AZ 11 (1960–2022) LA 11 (1882–2005) OH 11 (1871–2022) GA 10 (1957–2005) ME 10 (1848–2015) WV 9 (1923–2001) MI 8 (1945–2023) NM 7 (1929–2001) CO 7 (1896–1987) VT 6 (1851–2024) WI 6 (1923–2020) UT 6 (1945–2001) NH 6 (1935–1981) MT 6 (1954–1995) DE 5 (1980–2015) IA 5 (1858–2013) NE 4 (1941–1982) HI 4 (1956–2018) DC 4 (1979–1990) NV 4 (1941–1970) SD 3 (1934–2001) SC 3 (1962–2013) MN 3 (1969–2025) WY 2 (1955–2007) ND 2 (1954–1963)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check